UNI and SUSHI have chosen completely different development paths, and these differences are reflected in multiple dimensions such as Layer 2 solutions, product development directions, and token economic models.
In terms of Layer 2 technology strategy, Uniswap chose Optimistic Rollups as its scalability solution, while Sushiswap prefers zk-Rollups technology. This choice of technology route not only determines the different paths of the two in improving transaction processing capabilities, but may also bring Sushiswap closer integration and compatibility with projects in the YFI ecosystem (such as Hegic, Alpha Finance, and Cream Finance, etc.). In terms of product evolution, Uniswap focuses on deepening the V3 version of its automated market maker (AMM) model, like a master immersed in martial arts research; in contrast, Sushiswap is committed to broadening its DeFi territory, actively seeking innovation and integration by introducing diversified products such as the Bentobox lending platform, the Mirin project, and cross-chain functions, striving to get rid of the image of a "follower" and establish its own unique brand image.
In terms of the token economic model, the SUSHI token has realized the function of directly capturing transaction fees, while the UNI token's ability in this regard is still in the development stage. This design of Sushiswap makes its token economic model more attractive and provides more direct economic incentives for coin holders.
